On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

quoted text
>> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.

quoted text
> In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
> software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
> tamperproof to random end consumers).

But this is not tivoization.

Tivoization is a manufacturer using technical measures to prevent the
user from tampering (*) with the device, *while* keeping the ability
to tamper with it changes itself.

(*) tampering brings in negative connotations that I'd rather avoid,
but since that was the term you used, and the term "modifying" might
bring in legal-based technicalities such as that replacing isn't
modification, I just went with it.


So, given a proper definition, do you know any law that requires
tivoization?

Taking it further, do you know whether any such law requires
*worldwide* tivoization, as in, applying the restrictions in the law
even outside its own jurisdiction?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/